1988 Young Botanists Awards

Each year the Botanical Society of America awards Certificates of Merit to graduating seniors in plant sciences who are judged to be outstanding based on nominations by faculty members. Winners of the 1988 Young Botanist Awards are:

IS THERE A PLACE IN BIOTECHNOLOGY FOR BOTANISTS?

Jerry D. Davis1, Barbara W. Saigo2, and Ann J. Korschgen3

Biotechnology firms that engaged mainly in genetic engineering estimate they will need 1,000 new biotechnicians each year from now until 1995. Even if this estimate is high, it appears that there will be many new and rewarding positions for biologists.

Could some of these employees be graduates of our botany programs?

What coursework and training would improve the likelihood of our botany graduates becoming employed in biotechnology?

De our present curricula meet the needs that plant biotechnology firms are searching for in new graduates?

Can we produce a trained botanists who can become employed in biotechnology, without this student losing the identity as a botanist?

We surveyed all American-based biotechnology firms listed in the November-December, 1986, issue of Genetic Engineering News. Partial results of that survey are being reported here to answer some of our questions about possible employment.

While our inquiry did not single out botany as a specific background, we did address the question of biology degrees and coursework, including botany courses.

About 49% of the 330 firms contacted returned our biotechnology questionnaire. Two mailings were sent, the second only to those firms not responding to the first inquiry. Several telephone conversations were held with personnel of biotechnology firms specializing in plant biotechnology.

Biotechnology firms are looking for graduates with a variety of degree backgrounds. Interestingly, the percentage of firms looking for an employee with a BS in biology (72.2%) is about the same as a firm looking for a BS in microbiology (71%). MS and Ph.D. students are sought by slightly higher percentages of firms, 76.5% and 77.8% respectively. A BS degree in molecular biology would be considered by 61.7% of the firms responding to our survey. These percentages are firms hiring in these areas and do not reflect numbers of employees actually hired.

1

Firms were also asked to indicate specific course backgrounds they considered to be important in potential employees. The percentages of firms considering specific courses to be important were:

Biochemistry

83.3%

Molecular Biology

74.7%

Bacteriologoy (Microbiology)

67.3%

Genetics

43.2%

Electron Microscopy

14.2%

Mycology

11.1%

Plant Physiology

10.5%

General Botany

6.8%

Advanced Botany

4.9%

Ecology

4.3%

Its not clear why the course that require botany as a normal prerequisite had higher percentages than general botany---perhaps the relationship was not perceived by the respondents.

Based on our inquiry, it appears that students majoring in botany can increase their opportunities to be hired in biotechnology by building biochemistry, molecular biology, bacteriology (microbiology), and electron microscopy into their degree programs.

The importance of relevant work experience,
including specific skills gained during coursework or through outside activities were also surveyed. It seems evident from our inquiry that relevant work experience is a must if a botanist is going to become an employee in a biotechnology firm. Eighty-two percent of the firms consider relevant work experience to be one of the most important qualifications of a future employee. Tied for second, but far down the list, were communication skills (54.3% and interpersonal skills (53.7%), while chemistry background and personal recommendations were tied for 5th (44.4%).

Discussions with personnel at biotechnology firms confirm that at least one year of experience in a research laboratory would give an applicant a definite advantage. Some firms require previous applied experience. "Students don't learn much in the laboratory courses," was a common complain heard from employers responding in the query. These employers want to know if a graduate can handle benchwork in a laboratory and consider this the most important qualification. Most employers don't feel our laboratory courses provide the student with this background.

We feel, with the information gained through this biotechnology inquiry, that we can make the following suggestions for botanists at the BS level who want to enter laboratory technician positions in biotechnology firms:

Intern or work summers (without pay it necessary) in a university or private research
laboratory in botany, horticulture, plant pathology, or some related field. Don't rule out a laboratory that will provide skills in tissue culture, cancer research, or culturing microorganisms. Remember, firms are interested in laboratory ability and are much less concerned with the type of organisms the student has worked with.

As we continue to advise our botany and biology undergraduates, we need to become much more familiar with the types of experiences and skills biotechnology firms want their employees to have. These skills and experiences should be incorporated into the courses we offer our future botanists, beginning with general botany and biology laboratories. Students who want to become botanists can be very attractive to firms specializing in plant biotechnology.

PLANTS TODAY

Plants Today is a topical magazine for anyone with an interest in plant science, be it in ecology, field botany, physiology, cell biology or biotechnology. It aims to cover the interests of amateur botanists as well as those professionals working in schools, colleges and universities, in research institutes or in industry It should also appeal to students considering biology as a career, and to those with an interest in conservation or agriculture. Items of news and comment will complement features on matters of current interest, written by experts from the various areas of botany and its applications. Articles, although authoritative, will be presented and illustrated to make them of interest to those with other specialities or a general botanical background. Its coverage of topical issues makes
Plants Today a valuable means of keeping up-to-date with the plant sciences. The publication will appear
six times per year; a sample copy and subscription information can be obtained from: Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd., P.O. Box 88, Oxford, England.

RESEARCH SUPPORT LIAISON COMMITTEE IN ECOLOGY,
EVOLUTION AND SYSTEMATICS

The Research Support Liaison Committee in Ecology, Evolution and Systematics was formed in 1985 to act as an on-going liaison between various funding agencies and professional societies interested in ecology, evolution and systematics. The Botanical Society of America (BSA) is represented on this committee, as well as seven other societies (American Society of Naturalists, American Society of Zoologists, American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, American Society of Plant Taxonomists,
Ecological Society of America, Society for the Study of Evolution, Society for Systematic Zoology) representing about 10,000 scientists. At the present time, representatives from the Ecology and Systematics Sections of BSA have met with the Committee.

The purpose of the Committee is to increase the amount of information flowing between the various funding agencies and the professional societies. Although the Committee will eventually interact with several agencies, initial efforts have been with the National Science Foundation (NSF) because of its relative importance in funding research in ecology, evolution and systematics. The Committee has met
twice with NSF officials and has begun collecting information about several topics: Congressional budget processes for NSF; budget processes within
NSF; and various procedures for allocating funds at NSF. Perhaps more important, the Committee is establishing procedures by which information can flow from the societies to NSF.

Complete reports of the Committee's activities are available to BSA members from President Tucker or the chairs of the Ecological Section (Keith Clay) or the Systematics Section (David Young). These include information from NSF about annual funding levels in programs dealing with ecology, evolutionary biology

2

and systematicS, proposal success rates, discussions about how NSF appoints program officers and panel members, and how societies can increase funding levels in "hot" or neglected areas of organismal biology.

Several general comments can be made:

Individual scientists have numerous opportunities to make recommendations. These range from conversations with program officers to participation in workshops and conferences on potential budget initiatives.

New ideas that become successful initiatives need articulate advocates, like professional societies.

Our Society, and our sister societies through the Liaison Committee, can be of assistance to NSF in many ways, including: (a) ensuring that there are always strong candidates for rotating program directorships and advisory panel positions; (b) informing our members how best to write constructive reviews of proposals; (c) sponsoring workshops and conferences to help formulate new initiatives and longer-range research priorities; (d) providing testimony at appropriate times during the budget process; (e) keeping ourselves informed about NSF programs and plans.

During the coming year, the Liaison Committee will be further developing these ideas. If members have any thoughts or suggestions, they are encouraged to let us know.

BSA Subcommittee of the
Research Support Liaison
Committee in Ecology, Evolution and Systematics

James Lawrey Muriel Poston David Young

IN MEMORIAM

HERBERT PARKES RILEY

HERBERT PARKES RILEY, University of Kentucky distinguished professor of biological sciences
emeritus, died March 22, 1988 at his home in Lexington, Kentucky. He was 83. Professor Riley
received his Ph.D. degree with Dr. George H. Shull at Princeton in 1931. After teaching at Tulane University and the University of Washington, he went to the University of Kentucky in 1942 as Professor and Head of the Department of Botany. Dr. Riley held this position until 1965; he retired from the University of Kentucky in 1974. He was a member of the Botanical Society of America from 1951 until his death.

In the early years of his career, Dr. Riley published significant papers on introgressive hybridization in Iris (AJB 25:727-738, 1938) and Tradescantia (Genetics 24:753-769, 1939). At the
University of Kentucky, he did research on plant radiation cytology (e.g., Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 36:337-344, 1950, with N. H. Giles, Jr.) and the cytogenetics and biosystematics of the Aloineae (Liliaceae) (e.g., The Aloineae, a Biosystematic Survey, Univ. of Kentucky Press, 1979, with S. K. Majumdar).

Dr. Riley received an honorary degree of Doctor of Science from the University of Kentucky in 1976. In 1955, he was a Fulbright Lecturer at the University of Pretoria, and in 1956 at the University of Capetown. His scholarly publications include four books, two general botany laboratory manuals, over 70 journal articles, and numerous abstracts and book reviews. His book entitled An Introduction to Genetics and Cytogenetics" Wiley, 1948) was reprinted by Hafner in 1967.

Jerry M. Baksin and Carol C. Baskin University of Kentucky, Lexington

RICHARD ALLEN POPHAM

With the death of RICHARD ALLEN POPHAM on February 3, 1988 at age 74, the Botanical Society of America and the botanical community has lost a true friend. A strong advocate of botanical education, he taught beginning botany at The Ohio State University from the time of his doctorate there in 1940 until his retirement as Professor Emeritus in 1980 and even a few quarters after, except for a four-year leave during World War II. He grew up in Charleston, Illinois where he was born September 29, 1913 and where he attended the schools of Eastern Illinois State Teachers College (now Eastern Illinois
University), and obtained a Bachelor of Education degree at the College in 1936. It was there that he came under the influence of Professor Ernest L. Stover who turned his interest away from graduate studies in business to those in botany, and particularly plant anatomy and morphology. He earned a masters degree in 1937 and a doctorate in 1940 at Ohio State, during which time he spent the summers of 1937 and 1938 as Special Agent at the U.S.D.A. Dutch Elm Disease Laboratories at Morristown, New Jersey, and the summer of 1939 as Plant Anatomist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington Desert Laboratory in Tucson, Arizona. His career on the faculty at Ohio State beginning as Instructor in 1940, was interrupted from 1942 to 1946, first as Chief Ballistician at the Scioto Ordnance Plant in Marion, Ohio, and from December 1943 to December 1945 at the Los Alamos, New Mexico branch of the Manhattan District Project working as Superintendent of the Atomic Bomb Manufacturing Plant. It was in this position that he had considerable responsibility for major production of the first atomic bomb, and received the Army-Navy Production Award on October 16, 1945. Returning to Ohio State in 1946 as Assistant Professor, he became Associate Professor in 1950, and Full Professor in 1968. In 1949 he spent the summer as Visiting Professor at the University of Oklahoma, and was Consultant for the Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus from 1958 to 1969, and Research Collaborator at the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island from 1964 to 1980.

Professor Popham's research concerned development-al plant anatomy. For many years he taught a very popular and highly regarded course in plant anatomy.

Two textbooks resulted from his teaching: Developmental Plant Anatomy (1952); and Laboratory Manual for Plant Anatomy (1966). Over 35 research papers were published in journals over the years, the most significant ones dealing with shoot apex organization and differentiation. He directed 9 students through
their masters degrees, and 4 through their doctorates. Dedicated service to students and the
botanical profession consumed a considerable portion of Richard Popham's bachelor life. He was adviser and held various offices in the Gamma Alpha Graduate Fraternity, and he served as adviser to several undergraduate organizations. He was particularly active in two of he many professional organizations to which he belonged, and was a Foundation Member of the International Society of Plant Morphologists and a Charter Member of the Society of Economic Botany. In the Ohio Academy of Science he served as Business Manager of its publication, the Ohio Journal of Science (1949-1963), as its President (1965-1966T and for many years on various advisory councils. He served as Business Manager of the American Journal of Botany (1972-1981) and on the Council of the Botanical Society of America during that period, as well as earlier having served on various committees of the Society. By skillful investment and money management, he was able to put the finances of the Journal on a sound footing and provide for more pages and the elimination of some page charges for publishing members.

3

Many honors came to Richard A. Popham. He was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advanceent of Science (1940), and the Ohio Academy of Science (1944). He was elected a member of various honorary societies: Kappa Delta Pi in education (1935); Phi Epson Phi in botany (1936); Gamma sigma Delta in agriculture (1937); and the Society of the Sigma Xi for scientific research (1939). The Botanical Society of America awarded him its Certificate of Merit for outstanding contributions to botany in 1982.

Richard A. Popham was a person of strongly held and voiced opinions. He was demanding of himself as he was of others. His devotion to and hard work for botany and education were strong. He will be missed by those who share those interests.

Emanuel D. Rudolph Department of Botany Ohio State University Columbus

MEETINGS

American Conifer Society

The National Meeting of the American Conifer Society will be held August 3-5, 1988 at Longwood Gardens, P.O. Box 501, Kennett Square, PA 19348-0501. Post conference tours will be August 6 and 7. For more information, contact Longwood Gardens, Education Division (215) 388-6741, ext. 504, 8-11:30 a.m. and 12:30-4 p.m. Meeting will include tours of Longwood, area gardens, and nurseries: a fountain she.. and talks on such subjects as design, pest control, dwarf conifers, and cultivar selection.

Workshops

The Teaching Section of AIBS is sponsoring a series of workshops to be held on Sunday, August 13, 1988 at the annual meeting of the Botanical Society at UC-Davis. The workshops are: Using the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator in Teaching and Learning Botany (John Novak, presenting), Teaching Botany and Through Inquiry (Gordon Uno), An Introduction to Cladistics - Theory and Practice (Vicki Funk, David Young, Kevin Nixon), Computer-based Semantic Networks: A Tool for Increasing Depth of Learning in Life Science Courses (Robert Thornton, Kathleen Fisher, Joseph Faletti), Use of Multiple Choice Questions for Diagnosis and Improvement of Learning Skills (R. Thornton), Multiple Entry Keys for Teaching Plant Taxonomy (Thomas Duncan, Christopher Meacham) and Software Packages for Numerical Systematics (C. Meacham, T. Duncan). The cladistics and Duncan/Meacham workshops are cosponsored by the American Society of Plant Taxonomists. There is a fee of $3.00/workshop. For
more information or to register, contact Dr. Stephen G. Saupe, Biology Department, College of St.
Benedict, St. Joseph, MN 56374 (612-363-2782).

Symposium at UC-Davis

During the afternoon of August 16 and the morning of August 17, 1988, the Economic Botany, will co-sponsor the symposium New perspectives on the origin and evolution of New World domesticated plants." The speakers and topics inculde J. Doebley (Molecular evidence and the phylogeny of maize), H. Wilson (Quinua and its relatives), M. Nee (New perspectives on the origin and evolution of domesticated species of Cucurbita), P. Gepts (Biochemical evidence bearing on the domestication of Phaseolus beans), C. Rick and M. Holle (Andean Lycopersicon esculentum var. cerasiforme: genetic variation and its evolutionary significance), P. Grun (Evolution of the cultivated potato, Solanum tubersum), L. Rieseberg (Nuclear and cytoplasmic variation in wild and cultivated Helianthus: implications regarding the origin of the domesticated sunflower, H. annus), L. Newstrom (Origin and evolution of the chayote) C. Heiser (summary).

EVOLUCION BIOLOGIA

Evolucion will publish original scientific articles in area related to organic evolution,
including population genetics, molecular genetics, evolutionary genetics, evolutionary cytogenetics,
ecological genetics, population ecology, community ecology, systematics, taxonomy, biogeography, population biology, paleontology, evolutionary
geology and other areas that in some way include the field or organic evolution. Information regarding the submission of papers etc. can be obtained from: Professor H. F. Hoenigsberg, Institute of Genetics, Universidad de les Andes, Bogota, D.E., Columbia.

Thirty-Fifth Annual Systematics Symposium

The Thirty-fifth Annual Systematics Symposium is scheduled for October 7-8, 1988, at the Missouri Botanical Garden and will cover the topic "Conserving Biological Diversity--Prospects for the Twenty-First Century." If present trends continue, the loss of biological diversity will reach truly crisis proportions early in the twenty-first century. We believe that scientific research and action based on such research are indispensable in preventing this global crisis. This symposium will focus primarily on the scientific approach needed for averting the full onslaught of this crisis, as well as on some of the practical results and methods of implementing scientific principles of biological conservation.

AWARDS

American Horticultural Association Teaching Award

Dr. Barbara Shalucha of the Biology Department of Indiana University, a retired member of the Botanical Society of America, was awarded the Teaching Award of the American Horticultural Association at the Association's April meeting in Atlanta. Dr. Shalucha
was honored for "her unique ability to share her horticultural knowledge here and abroad." She has authored many technical and non-technical publications, laboratory manuals, and children's books, and been consistently effective in providing quality horticultural education for youth and adults.

POSITIONS

Staff Botanist/New Plant Introductions

Candidate must have minimum of 3 years profession-al experience or graduate education. Broad knowledge of woody ornamental plants required. Position is responsible primarily for identification, research and evaluation of new plants for release to the commercial trade. Oregon Garden Products, Inc., Ms.
Maria Fiallo (503) 640-4633.

4

Plant Physiologist

Candidate must have a minimum of 3 years professional experience or a graduate degree in either botany, plant physiology or closely related disciplines. Candidate will function as chief research officer and will have responsibility over a broad area of current research projects. Knowledge of micropropagation highly desirable. Oregon Garden
Products, Inc., Ms. Maria Fiallo (503)640-4633.

REVIEWS SOLICITED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES BULLETIN

The Southern California Academy of Science Bulletin is a peer reviewed journal specializing in the publication of papers with a regional focus. Research papers in all areas of science are considered. Normally there are no page charges and the current time from submission to publication is 9 months.

Beginning with Volume 88, the Bulletin will include solicited review articles (10-20 manuscript pages) dealing with regional problems of current scientific interest. Selection of reviews will attempt to reflect the range of interests represented by the members.

Persons interested in writing a review should send an outline of the topic, and names of referees who can comment on the appropriateness of the topic, to the technical editor. Also welcomed are suggestions for topics in need of review. Send topic suggestions and names of potential authors to the technical editor: Dr. John E. Keeley, Editor, Department of
Biology, Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041.

"It is not the critic who counts. The credit belongs to the (one) who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotions; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, at last fails while daring greatly."-- Theodore Roosevelt.

Often we are asked for our anonymous written opinion of a colleague's research proposal or manuscript. Most of us respond whenever we can, because it is one of the most important ways that we contribute to the development of our science. Such peer review is the primary mechanism by which we, the community of scientists, affect the distribution of limited grant funds and journal pages. Our reviews have enormous influence on the direction and rate of progress in our discipline.

It is not much help if we use this influence unwisely, or our review is not taken seriously. How should a review be fashioned so that it is taken at face value and not discounted? What sort of influence should it try to exert?

Surely a review should seek to identify and encourage the most promising and innovative research. Yet it is precisely the newest ideas that are the least tested, the most controversial and easiest to criticize. In fact, history reveals that new
theories often are incomplete and often do contain serious errors. But wouldn't it have been a tragedy if Natural Selection had been rejected because Darwin founded it upon incorrect mechanisms of inheritance?

If we are to advance our science, it is necessary that we take risks and actively encourage the development of new concepts, theories, and methods. If we, as reviewers, are afraid of mistakes, and insist that our peers write airtight proposals, then who will dare to tackle the difficult questions? If we required that a proposal be so well described that we can visualize every aspect of the research, is the work really likely to produce any surprises or major new discoveries? We have to be honest and point out potential problems, but, above all, we must strive to identify and express our enthusiasm for new ideas and innovative approaches.

Howe do we write a review that will convince panel members and program directors that a proposal, for all its rough edges, is an eminently worthwhile risk, an exciting adventure with a high payoff if it succeeds? The Research Support Liaison Committee in Ecology, Evolution and Systematics took this question to the staff members of NSF's Division of Biotic Systems and Resources. The way we phrased it
reflects a nagging perception that we shared with them. With funds scarce relative to need and the average reality of proposals very high, is there a tendency of reviewers, panel members, and program directors to be conservative, avoid risks and look for grounds to criticize a proposal? Is any fault or loose and likely to prevent funding? Must we avoid negative comments in our reviews if we feel a proposal should be funded?

The answers from BSR scientists were unanimous. Furthermore, the same questions could be addressed to a journal editor, and the answers would be similar. So the Research Support Committee felt they should be shared.

The Correlation: Between Detail and Negativity
in Reviews

The more negative the tenor of a review, the more detail it has. This is a fact. We know no reason why it has to be so, but it is. Negative reviews are often full of well-reasoned objections. Positive reviews are more often brief statements of approval. They may be full of glowing adjectives, but they rarely contain the details and logical arguments which would give them substance.

Faced with positive reviews lacking substance and with well-documented negative criticisms, panels are often swayed by the negative comments. What else can we expect? If NSF is to discount negative comments about promising but risky and even somewhat flawed proposals, it must have good reasons for doing so.

Accentuate the Positive

We all know what a long, negative review looks like. It is time to produce some long, positive ones. When you encounter a good proposal (or ms),
spend your time on that one. Describe in detail what makes it good. Remember that NSF panels and ad hoc
reviewers are drawn from a wide spectrum of our peers. Just because we recognize the merits of a
proposal does not mean that other reviewers will appreciate them. State why the problem is important, what contribution the proposed research will make, and why the investigators are well-qualified to do the work. Avoid hyperbole and be specific. Point

5

out weaknesses, too, and explain why they have not put you off. Give the program director (or editor) a good excuse to follow your advice.

Many reviewers seem to think it is their primary responsibility to discover and call attention to all the flaws in a proposal or manuscript. Perhaps they have the attitude that it should be deemed worthy until proved otherwise. They may sound fair, but it is, in truth, pernicious. It makes us over into petty bookkeepers, subtracting the value of each counterfeit penny without noticing that they are coming from a solid gold box. If we accept that even the best science---and especially science that has not yet been done---must be imperfect, then we should be able to resist the temptation to dwell on the negative aspects. If we adopt the attitude that a proposal does not deserve funding unless the research is daring, novel or interesting, then we should place more emphasis on the positive aspects of a good proposal and write longer, more constructive positive reviews.

We need to remember that it is much more damaging to our discipline to suppress an important contribution than to fund or publish a questionable piece of research. New ideas and conflicting data cannot have any influence unless they are developed, whereas serious errors will usually be detected and corrected, either by the investigator before publication or by the scientific community soon afterward. This is why it is essential to be broad-minded, and to consider the potential importance of a piece of research as well as to search for flaws.

Regulate the Proportion of Positive Comments

Do not undermine what is intended to be a positive review by devoting more attention to criticism than to supporting comments. The overall impression your review makes depends upon the proportion of criticisms which are positive. You cannot counter that fact with an introductory or concluding paragraph. If there are three pages of negatives, and the first sentence says, This is a manifestly important
proposal and should be fully funded," what do you think the panelists notice? Their overall negative impression cannot be reversed. Believe it. If you really think the proposal is that good, fill the review with your reasons and mention the negatives briefly.

The score assigned by reviewers to NSF proposals is also very influential. As much as panel members and program officers try to read the reviews care-fully, it is a fact that proposals that receive low scores or average a less than 2 (very good) have a difficult time. Scores should reflect the priority that we place on supporting a particular program of research, not the number of nita that can be picked from the way the proposal is written. In writing a review, we would all do well to bear in mind the difficulties we would have in trying to write a proposal to support the most exciting of our own research.

If you feel compelled to note every flaw, send the details directly to the author, and point out in your review that you have done so. The panel will then be even more convinced of your positive opinion because they see you are taking so much time to help. For example, a prescient reviewer of Darwin might have written, "I have my doubts as to the validity of Mr. Darwin's ideas on the process of heredity, and I have written to him in detail about these doubts. But even if I am correct, Mr. Darwin's proposal to visit the Galapagos Islands remains extremely valuable." And just to be sure that you realize Darwin is hardly the only example, consider whether it would nave been wise to discourage R. A. Fisher's researchers because his models lacked the component of genetic drift. Would you have suppressed Eldredge and Gould's work on punctuated equilibria because they first insisted that punctuation had to be connected to speciation? Would you have retired R. H. MacArthur as soon as he made the illogical jump from resource-use overlaps to competitive alphas?

Negative Reviews

Simultaneously, we should learn to write shorter negative reviews. Simply admit that you found nothing particularly exciting or novel. It is very important, however, to write such reviews, thus calling attention to proposals that are solid but unexciting and unlikely to result in significant advances. If other reviewers have expressed similar concerns, the panel will have little difficulty making an evaluation. The panel needs help ensuring that critically short funds are not wasted on pedestrian projects.

The above is not intended to suggest that we should endeavor to be less critical. Serious criticisms and substantial concerns should always be expressed, but this can be done in dispassionate language without indulging in ad hominem assaults.

Critics of art and literature, whose criticisms are often published and who earn their keep from them, feel they must entertain their readers with a rapier wit, caustic comments, piercing put-downs, and acid cuts. Many appear to have decided that criticism is a written version of prizefighting except that in boxing, low blows are against the rules. Leon Wieseltier galls it "aggression as an intellectual instrument".5

Unfortunately, all too many negative scientific reviews seem to have been written by put-down artists. This is not only cruel and cowardly (at least the literary critic signs his piece). Put it minimizes their influence as well. The editor,
panelist or program director is driven to sympathize with the victim. This may mean that if you and you
alone noticed the flaws, but reported them intemperately, your criticism will he ignored. Moreover, such aggressive attacks leave a lasting impression of unprofessionalism on your part.

The Payoff to our Whole Science

Basic science in America is often under attack as a social luxury, and an expensive one at that. Usually the attacks are oblique. Politicians ask what direct, immediate benefits to expect from our work, or given golden fleece awards to projects whose titles make them easy targets.

Dr. Janet V. Dorigan of the Department of Energy has observed that when scientists are under attack, they circle round, wagon-train style. The physicists aim outward at their opponents. Biologists, on the other hand, aim inward, at each other. Their weapons, of course, are disparaging reviews and negative comments.

The earth pulses with fascinating ecological and evolutionary questions, and threatens with environmental concerns. The questions are as intellectually challenging as those facing any other scientific discipline. The answers are essential to deal with the environmental problems that best the world. But we cannot convince other scientists (or the public, or government officials) of the importance of our work if we seem to be calling each other incompetents. Why should anyone want to invest in a bunch
of incompetents?

In order to convey a more accurate impression of the value of our collective labors, we all need to make a conscious effort to tolerate diverse ideas and unconventional approaches, and to promote independence and originality. Robert Reich has written that "Technological innovation is largely a process of imagining radical alternatives to what is currently accepted."6 Thus it can thrive only if dissent is tolerated. In our reviews, we must encourage that dissent and emphasize the advances it will make possible.

6

A famous cartoon character (Pogo) once said, "We have met the enemy and he is us." This my accurately characterize many human activities, such as ethnic and religious prejudice, war, and degradation of the environment. But it cannot be permitted to be true of the scientific enterprise, which is in its very essence mutualistic and collaborative. The peer review system has obvious limitations and imperfections, but it is the best means that scientists have devised to evaluate each others' work. It is up to us, the community of ecologists, evolutionists and systematists, to use the peer review system carefully and wisely. One then can it serve the goal we all
share: the rapid advancement of our discipline. 7

5 The New Republic, 16 XII 1987:42. But notice that even professional critics often make fools of themselves with negative
reviews: Henderson, Bill (1986, 1987) Rotten Reviews 1 & II. Pushcart Pres, NY 6 The New Republic, 3 VIII 1987:32. 7 Acknowledgements: The Division of Biotic Systems & Resources, US National Science Foundation, directed by Dr. John Brooks, provided freely of their time to discuss the issues with the Committee. Dr.
James T. Callahan suggested the main idea of this editorial. The following members of the Committee contributed to its planning or discussed an earlier draft of it or both: Drs. Dave Allan, Waiter Eanes, Doug Gill, Steven Green, Jim Lawrey, Jane Lubchenco, Norton Miller, Larry Pomeroy, Muriel Poston, Paul Risser, Dick Root, Larry Slobodin, Rick Vari,
Elizabeth Wells.

ANNOUNCEMENT

The College of Natural Resources (CNR) at Utah State University announces the Quinney Visiting Scholar Program made possible by a grant from the Joe and Jessie E. Quinney Foundation. Awards are available for established scholars who would like to spend between three and twelve months in the College of Natural Resources at Utah State University.

The purpose of the program is to facilitate interchange between the scholars and the students and faculty of CNR in new, exciting areas of teaching, research, and management of natural resources. It will provide an opportunity for the visiting professionals to explore new and innovative ideas free from the demand of their work place. It will also broaden the perspectives of the CNR students and faculty. Letters of inquiry should be directed to the Dean, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 84322-5200.

BOOK REVIEW

This is a very useful book on the reconstruction of phylogeny by a young vertebrate paleontologist, recently the editor of the journal Vertebrate Paleontology. It has always seemed odd to me that
paleobotanists have been slow to pick up on cladistic methods in their analyses. Because of the limited data often available from each fossil, it is essential to be precise about homologies and methods of assessing relationships. I suppose in part its because some cladists have suggested that fossils cannot tell you much, if anything, about relation-ships among modern taxa.

The chapters of the book are as follows: (1) The
Basics of Various Methodologies Used to Reconstruct Phylogeny; (2) The Basic Units of Phylogenetic Analysis; (3) The Conceptual Foundations and Bases of Phylogeny Reconstruction; (4) The Fossil Record; (5) Historical Biogeography; (6) Systematics, Taxonomy, and Classification; and (7) The Importance of Phylogeny Reconstruction to Evolutionary Studies. This outline is a good one, and subheadings are included for each chapter, which further facilitates grasping the outline of ideas the author is presenting.

This author is a cladist with a capital C, but in spite of this, his book is the most balanced of all those presently available as coherent texts. The one which provides the most diversity of views is Duncan and Stuessy (1984), but that is an edited symposium volume. Although a clear convert to the causes of methodological parsimony and hypothesis-testing perspective, Schoch does give consideration to other views (before opting for a more rigid approach in the final analysis). For example, he devotes 20 pages to details of evolutionary (= phyletic) classification--much more than in any other of the cladistic texts.

In the pages devoted to "Classical Evolutionary Taxonomic Methods" he provides good discussions of the approaches of Szalay, Boo, Hanson and Harper. His is an interesting attempt based on a type of quantified phyletic distance. These distances are converted to two-dimensional networks and then rooted intuitively. The method stresses shared derived
states, but it also quantifies shared primitive conditions. The terminology used with emphasis on the seme (a unit of evolutionary information which corresponds to a structural or functional part of an organ, usually a character), the arbitrary numerical weighting of both primitive derived states, and the intuitive rooting of networks all detract from recommending this specific methodology. Nontheless,
the overall idea is good. There is much evolutionary information in phylogeny beyond overall resemblance or branching patterns which should be incorporated into an explicit approach to classification. In this context, Hanson's efforts are pioneering ones.

The 25 pages of references in Schoch's book are useful, and this is the best single available source to get the breadth of titles desirable for broad thinking about phylogeny reconstruction and classification. There is also a useful glossary of terms. Even though the title of the book focuses on paleontology, the work is, in my opinion, the best single volume of balanced information for the neontologist as well. It is written in a scholarly
style, and therefore not rapid reading, but it is a valuable contribution to the ever increasing
cladistic literature.

Serpentine and Its Vegetation is divided into two parts. Part I consists of a general introduction (Chapter 1) and chapters on chemistry and mineralology of ultramafic rocks (Chapter 2), formation and chemical/physical properties of serpentine soils (Chapter 3), the serpentine factor--i.e., the cause(s) of toxicity and infertility of serpentine soils and of the impoverished flora and stunted vegetation associated with them (Chapter 4), serpentine and agriculture (Chapter 5), plant evolution in relation to serpentine soils (Chapter 6), animals and serpentine (Chapter 7), distribution and phytaochemistry of plants which hyperaccumulate nickel (Chapter 8) and kimberlites, carbonatites and their vegetation (Chapter 9). According to Brooks, kimberlites and carbonatites are "scattered and worldwide" and thus are included in Part I of the book rather than in Part II, which is "regionally-oriented."

7

Part II is a regional survey of the serpentine vegetation of the world. After a short introduction (Chapter 10), Brooks gives a country-by-country survey of the geology, soils, flora, and vegetation of serpentine areas, and of the biogeochemical studies of the serpentine flora (Chapter 11-21). What he means by biogeochemical studies is chemical analyses of serpentine plants, not cycles and budgets of elements in the serpentine ecosystem. Brooks' research area is elemental composition of plants that grow on serpentine soil, and he has made many contributions to the field. One of his prime interests is plants which hyperaccumulate (>1000 ug/ g.d.w. plant tissue) certain normally toxic elements, such as nickel, which are present in relatively high abundance in serpentine soils.

A rather limited glossary, an extensive botanical index (which contains a few taxonomic errors and misspellings), a geographical index, and a subject index follow Part II. References to literature cited are given at the end of each chapter, and altogether about 900 works are cited. Coverage of the literature from outside English speaking countries is impressive.

Although much has been written about the ecology of serpentine soils, according to Brooks this is the first book to deal with the subject. His stated aim (preface) is to present"... to a very wide spectrum of readers a broad overview, in English, of the entire field." However, in my opinion this book is primarily for persons trained in plant ecology, plant geography, and florsitics.

In the strict sense, "serpentine" refers to the minerals antigorite and chrysotile (asbestos) with the general formula of Mg3 SI2 05(OH)4, which are derived from the "serpentinization" of ultramafic rocks. However, Brooks admittedly "joins the crowd," and thus uses serpentine as a synonym for "ultramafic." The term ultramatic includes all rock types containing high concentrations of magnesium and iron. Soils derived from most ultramafic rocks are high in magnesium, iron, chromium, cobalt, and nickel and low in calcium and other essential major elements such as N, P, and K. In addition, the clay content of the soil is low, and consequently so is the cation exchange capacity. Further, the soils may be shallow and rocky and thus droughty. However, serpentine-derived lateritic soils in New Caledonia differ from other serpentine soils in being extremely low in magnesium and in having a low pH.

As a result of these harsh edaphic conditions, the flora of serpentine areas is impoverished compared to that of surrounding nonserpentine areas, and the vegetation (especially in moist temperate areas) exhibits a stunted, xeromorphic appearance. A number of theories, including the high Mg/Ca ratio and the high concentrations of nickel, cobalt, and chromium, have been advanced to explain the causal factor related to the infertility of serpentine soils and to the nature of their flora and vegetation--i.e., the "serpentine factor." After reviewing the theories, Brooks concludes that a combination of soil chemical/ physical and biotic factors, which vary from region to region, is the serpentine factor. In particular, he thinks that the serpentine problem is related to the absolute or relative abundance of magnesium, nickel, and calcium, and to soil pH.

Throughout the world, serpentine vegetation, in comparison with surrounding vegetation, is characterized by one or more of the following attributes: (1) reduced number of species, (2) ecotypic differentiation and/or endemic (bodenstet) taxa, (3) disjunctions, (4) stunted, xeromorphic vegetation (especially in moist temperate regions), (5) dominance of certain genera (e.g., Alyssum) or families (e.g., Caryophyllaceae) of plants, (6) indifferent (bodenvag) taxa, which grow both on and off serpentine, and (7) hyperaccumulators of nickel. The number of endemics of serpentine soils in glaciated areas or in areas close to the margin of the ice advance is fewer than in unglaciated areas not close to the glacial advance. For example, the serpentine floras of northeastern North America, Pacific northwestern North America, northwestern Europe, and southern New Zealand have fewer endemics than California, southern Europe, or northern New Zealand. Brooks concludes that New Caledonia "...carries the richest, most interesting, and most diverse serpentine vegetation anywhere on earth..." About 60% (900) of the plant taxa in the serpentine vegetation of New Caledonia are endemic to serpentine. But there are other regions of the world such as southern Africa, Albania, Anatolia, California, Cuba, Greece, Japan. the Iberian Peninsula, and the Malay Archepelago, that have a diverse and interesting serpentine flora and vegetation, including many endemics.

Considering the large amount of material covered, I think that Brooks has done an outstanding job of summarizing serpentine soil and its flora and vegetation throughout the world. The book contains numerous maps, diagrams, graphs, tables, and photographs (some in color). Serpentine and Its
Vegetation will remain the standard reference on the world's serpentine soils, flora, and vegetation for many years. I recommend it to all botanists interested in the flora and vegetation of serpentine areas and of other peculiar edaphic situations.

Items posted on the Botanical Society of America's website by the author/creator are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
We value sharing, growing and learning together. In the spirit of fairness, we believe in the attribution of materials and ensuring the appropriate voices are in place when considering further use.